canon rumors FORUM

Jesus, convince yourself. I am so sick of hearing about RAW. It's better for most things, you are retarded if you don't shoot RAW... Unless it's sports, or journalism and you need the jpgs in a hurry. or something.

I do not understand why people need their hand held on this. Or alternatively need to wear it on a T-shirt. Who cares! What if everything was this way? Should I use good lenses or bad... which is better? Focus well or not? which to choose?

Jpeg sure has advantages for the wedding shooter and sports togs who shoot in burst. Most likely these guys can get their exposure bang on. I can't, so I need RAW, not only to fix exposure issues but WB too, which often needs corrected.

Anyway, to speed up my post processing I first of all delete as I go in camera whenever I have a moment.

After backing up data on my laptop I use windows gallery (Bridge is also good for this task) to view the images and move the GOOD images that I will process into a separate folder. lets say 30-50 good ones. Import those to lightroom.

I used to import all the RAW files into LR but I got lazy and didn't clean house and ended up with loads of junk.

Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said already, eight pages are a lot to go through!

PackLight

Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work? No need in it for that person.

I don't understand this perspective at all - it simply is not that hard.

I have a nearly four year old Apple laptop, which is still a stock model aside from having had a replacement internal hard drive and update to the latest OS. Both JPEG and RAW import to Lightroom at pretty much the same speed, and never slow enough to be an issue. RAW files are usable almost everywhere on the Mac - you can preview them in the Finder, for example. 'Developing' a RAW file takes milliseconds rather than minutes.

The import process in Lightroom is pretty much transparent, and you do not need to configure anything. In the simplest case, just install Lightroom and plug in your camera. The software will pop-up a dialogue asking if you want to import all photographs other than duplicates. Click 'import' and it will import the images and apply sensible default development settings. Done.

Extracting images to send to a client (or upload to Flickr or whatever) is just as easy, the only difference being that you need to select the images to output and select 'export' rather than selecting the images on the computer and copying them. Same effort in both cases, except that Lightroom can also *optionally* change file dimensions, compression level, watermarking and metadata automatically for each exported image.

I would argue that shooting JPEG in camera is much more fiddly than using Lightroom - because of the bewildering array of JPEG options to select from, the fact that they are usually different between cameras, and the fact that if I get it wrong in camera I would need a time machine to fix it :-)

There are real reasons to prefer JPEG over RAW: burst speed and length (sports), easy of immediate transfer (journalism - or anyone trying to use the images directly on an iPad...). However, if speed and difficulty of handling the files is a major issue then there is probably something very wrong with your computer/software setup...

You took five paragraphs to explain the process. You are right, if a Pro takes a picture and sells it immediately and doesn't need to archive a photo to storage. If his client is immensely happy with the JPG images he produces then this Pro should go ahead and make all his pictures RAW just because it is the better thing to do.

By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.

Especially if you have only been taking your photography seriously for a few months, you should be shooting in RAW.

1.) You're likely just finding your internal eye. A year from now, you will look back and find that the photo you thought was garbage is actually pretty remarkable, your RAW file will let you print it full size and correct it far better than a JPG will.

2. RAW is the raw data from your camera. Shooting in RAW will force you to be a better photographer, because all the easy-fix bells and whistles like Auto Lighting Optimizer don't work with RAW. Shooting in RAW shows you what mistakes you're making and doesn't let you get away with mistakes.

Learning to shoot, in my opinion, is only one part of the greater ecosystem of photography workflow. Learning how to edit your files and what to do with the images is the larger challenge. By shooting in RAW (or converting to DNG) you will be able to come back to these files in 5 or 10 years when you've accumulated a huge amount of knowledge and tweak them to your particular style, fixing exposure, contrast, and noise at a far greater level then you will with JPGs.

The "pro" photographers aren't just shooting photos and handing them off. They're manipulating their work, creating projects, and creating value far beyond just a simple photographic capture. When I shoot, I charge clients a matching hour for post processing for every hour of shooting. That's how important post processing is to me, and that's why I always shoot in RAW.

If file size is a problem, yes, you're going to have to boot for a new hard drive. You can get a terabyte for $100 these days. Another option is to get critical about your work and trash anything that isn't top notch. In my first year of shooting professionally I produced 12,000 photographs and in the end I kept 6,000 for my personal portfolio and passed maybe 1,000 on to clients. The rest were trash.

By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.

Well, ms is an exaggeration - but it is not seconds either. I can preview 5DII CR2 files in the finder at full-size without significant delay (C2Duo 17" 2.8GHz with a dual HDD configuration using a 7200RPM mechanical disk plus SSD; 8GB RAM). It is difficult to gauge performance in Lightroom directly because of its caching behaviour, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between large hi-resolution JPEGs and the equivalent RAW files.

I used to have serious problems with Lightroom catalogue performance, but these disappeared with LR4 and moving both the LR catalogue and cache files to the SSD. Perceived performance in Lightroom seems often down to it generating large preview files or paging. Another problem that will affect performance with imports is RAM size - even with 8GB it is possible for LR to trigger paging due to lack of memory if other apps are open (esp PS).

I might try benchmarking the Apple RAW converter, as I have written some software that uses it to batch process RAW files in the past.

In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.

RAW is original data with the full information of what the camera (sensor + lens) are capable to record.

1. More DR (at lower ISOs, depending on camera) so you are free to change contrast, black-point/white-point, color curves, color temperature without loss or with very little loss. 2. Think about the invention of a new algorithm to convert RAW files into other formats like JPEG with enhanced quality - with JPEGs only you loose.

That's why I love my 40D much over the 600D: clean 10MPix raws with reasonable size instead of 18MPix raws with 1.5 times the size but not substantially more information.